I sold high. I almost jumped back in but stopped myself. Glad I did. Aren't you the same guy that was posting this crap when DRK was .015? I bet there are a lot of people that wish they hadn't listened to people like you. The majority of advice regarding buying and selling in this thread is complete garbage. There are a few individuals that are more objective and not just hyping. You're not one of them. I know I am not.  I think you have done an awesome job. I used to get into trivial arguments with you and get all riled up with the regulars. I have since changed my stance. You fucking own this thread (and I don't mean this in a sarcastic way). I have seen other coins threads destroyed by trolls. Not ONE of them had one of the calibre as you (again not sarcastic, this is a compliment). You made Evan respond to you, and not to any technical talks that were happening a few days ago. That means something. The one thing I will not do, which you tend to often do, is brag about my positions. I think that is just not my style. Some know through private messages I have had with them and they respect our privacy. But you have your own way, and a successful way, and you deserve it. People in this thread, and Evan especially doesn't know what it takes to be successful in the modern world. If you cheat, lie, and generally be crooked you have more chance to be successful in life. Altcoins in general will have a tough time to survive. I just don't see anyone being successful at all. At least not in the traditional definition of success. I agree with the above. However, (to me) his tune seems to have kinda changed over the last few days. I'm not sure if he managed new success on the water or what, but he's overall less confrontation, almost even respectful at times.  |
|
|
|
This morning (my time) I "predicted" 99% by tomorrow morning. That will in 14h from now. Simple voodoo math ... 99% of the pool are updated.  Great! So now the price is going to go up right? The miners will make back the 20% because the price will go up due to the masternode payments. Isn't that what you guys have been saying? Still sticking to that story? I for one would not say that (bolded part).*Most* miners mine simply based on a profitability formula; if it's 20% less profitable now, chances are some other coin has become more profitable. Thus, miners will leave until the profitability is approximately back where it was before. This is the beauty of a (free) market system; things even themselves out. Miners will not benefit either way if the price rises or falls (except very short term), as miners mining based solely on profitability don't typically hold the coins they mine. Masternode payments do not seem relevant either way. Holders and buyers are those who benefit (or not) by the price rising (or falling). Now, is the price higher now than it would be without ~700,000 DRK being used as a sort of PoService (regardless of that service being fully implemented or not)? I don't know, but it seems to not be an unreasonable assumption. |
|
|
|
with this kind of problem I wouldn't trust ANYONE, unless there's any trustless mechanism available (e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/DRKCoin/comments/2aopdl/trustless_coin_leasing_system_that_would_allow ) Is it clear that DZ is a scammer and not just dead or in hospital or something?
the thing is, even his long time "partner" is giving lame excuses now... it's a bad image for the whole darkcoin community. that's the reason why people want government regulations for cryptocurrencies... the scammers  The "trustless" systems thus described (like multisig) have their own issues. What happens if someone dies? I think there is a "two out of three" or similar setup that could help with that, but it's still not perfect (particularly if one of the people involved has more coins at stake than the rest; the two with less could collude and take the coins from the guy with more, etc). Interested to hear more ideas though. (also considering offering my own services, but yeah, always that trust thing) Edit: or just use crouton's. |
|
|
|
I haven't been following this thread at all, but he (DZ) just disappeared? The next payout was scheduled for tomorrow, right? I'd probably not do anything until then? Also, are the involved Masternodes known? As in, are they all still there, etc.? If so, he hasn't really done anything wrong yet, just disappeared (I agree, disappearing is "bad", but I don't think there's anything illegal about it?). |
|
|
|
I thought there where incompatible differences between RC3 and RC4. In eltito's quote he says that the enforcement mechanism is going to change. Given that, I don't see how anybody running the RC3 wallet will have their blocks confirmed after RC4 enforcement. What am I missing ?
Two fold. One is pool stratum code, the other is wallet. If stratum is updated, its good to go. You can safely run with wallet as old as 11.4 right now, no "real" need to have 11.6 RC4 will basically change 6 random votes to deterministic top 10, making the dreaded variance much more in line with regular payouts. Nothing but good stuff. Sorry for continuing this discussion, but I still don't see how this works. Versions 11.4 - 11.6 are all RC3 based so I agree that they are all OK assuming stratum is updated. As for RC4, I thought 2 things where changing: 1. Responsibility for selecting winning masternode is moving from the miners to the masternodes themselves 2. Enforcement is being re-written to be "safer"(eltito's phrasing) If only #1 was happening then I would agree with you, but if #2 is also happening I don't see how everyone will avoid updating. So is #2 NOT happening? And if so, then why is enforcement not already on if it will remained unchanged in RC4 (and since we are already at 99% compliance). No need to be sorry! We could use a sensible debate instead of troll patrol  Cumulative coding. #2 "only" means a different algo to determine MN payout rules. Apart other "secret" upgrades. So you are saying #1 and #2 are really the same thing.... still seems off to me, but there is no point going back and forth as neither of us is privy to RC4 code. It seems fair to expect that Masternodes will need to be updated for sure, whether "regular" nodes will be affected is up for debate. I don't think anyone "out here" can say with any certainty what will be required. (my personal opinion is in line with JGCMiner) Edit: if we're adding that improved Darksend(+) will be included in RC4, then most certainly all clients will need to be updated to take advantage of that. |
|
|
|
darkcoin team should do sth
Disagree. Edit: to expand, they should continue "developing", not babysitting the price. |
|
|
|
going to get my darkcoins out just to be safe any other good exchanges you guys recommend
For trading more than just DRK/BTC (Bitfinex seems to be good for that), I'd still just use MP, though Poloniex hasn't had any trouble in quite some time and adds coins far quicker. They just don't have too much volume. I guess Bittrex is ok as well, I just don't like their interface. |
|
|
|
Morning folk. Just woke up and got creeped by the MP news. What really bothers me there, is that it was not user account, but MP themselves... so why on earth only Vericoin were stolen? If it was a service exploit, they would have gone straight to BTC, LTC and heck, even DRK.... why Vericoin?  Mintpal are bent. Always have been, they're just smart and subtle about it. They run bot armies price-fixing and shorting the coins that every other fool in cryptoland leaves lying there like it's a fucking bank. This time they screwed up somehow, their gamble didn't pay off, and the vericoin devs are in cahoots with them. Seriously, forking back a blockchain to cover an exchange's stupidity is a horrible precedent. An honest exchange would take the loss and learn from it. Blockchains are not supposed to be fucking time machines to magically repair the screwups of big players. Someone please explain to me how what was done here is different than TBTF. What's TBTF? Too Big To Fail, AKA USA banks circa 2008. Edit: AKA, the most centralized you can get. Ah thanks. I'm not sure it's quite the same though. The exchange model is very similar to the casino model - the house takes its cut, so with plenty of customers, the house makes good money, they don't need to cheat. They always cheat.Why? Because they are greedy fucks and because they can. Anyone can see the rampant bot activity on Mintpal just by looking at the order books for a few minutes. Mintpal thus have to admit to having a 'closed beta' trading API - good luck getting access to it without paying them a small fortune. Basic reason suggests that the biggest users of this 'closed beta' trading API are Mintpal themselves. Since they have mountains of coins that idiots leave on their exchange, it becomes trivially easy for them to bot coin prices up, down or sideways as it suits them, and to long and short at will with other peoples money. Mostly this works, because they are mostly competent and very experienced at this. They make fortunes and we are all none the wiser. In this case they fucked up somehow, and as they probably either had the vericoin dev by the balls because he'd paid a large sum to get listed on Mintpal in the first place, or he was in on their scheme from the beginning - think for a moment who's providing the funding for all these shitcoin launches that exchanges benefit from the frenzied trading on! - they jointly decided to do the unthinkable and FUCK WITH THE BLOCKCHAIN for their own benefit. So, not so much 'Too Big To Fail,' more like, 'We Don't Give A Shit, So Fuck You.' (WDGAS,SFU) Understand, but I'm not seeing how it's different (I'm not comparing MP to a bank, rather the process of what happened). It's like a bailout: someone, somewhere, screwed up, but the dev's stepped in and made the problem disappear. My thought is it must have been a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing (with the "if you don't" being even worse than this). I mean, the coin has basically been given over to a central authority now. Will they roll back the chain again in the future if something else happens? How big of a screw-up does it need to be? Or how much money needs to be paid under the table? Or how many benefits do to the devs need to see? Or, Or, Or.... any dev that considers what they are doing a solution is not someone who I would trust. Makes you really appreciate when Evan rolled back the 6/20 fork because the network was slow to respond to orphans when everybody was screaming "don't" on IRC. Doing what is right by the coin regardless of price (those second set of fork issues could have killed DRK) is really commendable. Agree for sure; it really makes the coin untrustworthy in my eyes. My only thought is that the alternative was worse. |
|
|
|
Morning folk. Just woke up and got creeped by the MP news. What really bothers me there, is that it was not user account, but MP themselves... so why on earth only Vericoin were stolen? If it was a service exploit, they would have gone straight to BTC, LTC and heck, even DRK.... why Vericoin? Mintpal are bent. Always have been, they're just smart and subtle about it. They run bot armies price-fixing and shorting the coins that every other fool in cryptoland leaves lying there like it's a fucking bank. This time they screwed up somehow, their gamble didn't pay off, and the vericoin devs are in cahoots with them. Seriously, forking back a blockchain to cover an exchange's stupidity is a horrible precedent. An honest exchange would take the loss and learn from it. Blockchains are not supposed to be fucking time machines to magically repair the screwups of big players. Someone please explain to me how what was done here is different than TBTF. What's TBTF? Too Big To Fail, AKA USA banks circa 2008. Edit: AKA, the most centralized you can get. Ah thanks. I'm not sure it's quite the same though. The exchange model is very similar to the casino model - the house takes its cut, so with plenty of customers, the house makes good money, they don't need to cheat. They always cheat.Why? Because they are greedy fucks and because they can. Anyone can see the rampant bot activity on Mintpal just by looking at the order books for a few minutes. Mintpal thus have to admit to having a 'closed beta' trading API - good luck getting access to it without paying them a small fortune. Basic reason suggests that the biggest users of this 'closed beta' trading API are Mintpal themselves. Since they have mountains of coins that idiots leave on their exchange, it becomes trivially easy for them to bot coin prices up, down or sideways as it suits them, and to long and short at will with other peoples money. Mostly this works, because they are mostly competent and very experienced at this. They make fortunes and we are all none the wiser. In this case they fucked up somehow, and as they probably either had the vericoin dev by the balls because he'd paid a large sum to get listed on Mintpal in the first place, or he was in on their scheme from the beginning - think for a moment who's providing the funding for all these shitcoin launches that exchanges benefit from the frenzied trading on! - they jointly decided to do the unthinkable and FUCK WITH THE BLOCKCHAIN for their own benefit. So, not so much 'Too Big To Fail,' more like, 'We Don't Give A Shit, So Fuck You.' (WDGAS,SFU) Understand, but I'm not seeing how it's different (I'm not comparing MP to a bank, rather the process of what happened). It's like a bailout: someone, somewhere, screwed up, but the dev's stepped in and made the problem disappear. My thought is it must have been a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing (with the "if you don't" being even worse than this). I mean, the coin has basically been given over to a central authority now. Will they roll back the chain again in the future if something else happens? How big of a screw-up does it need to be? |
|
|
|
Morning folk. Just woke up and got creeped by the MP news. What really bothers me there, is that it was not user account, but MP themselves... so why on earth only Vericoin were stolen? If it was a service exploit, they would have gone straight to BTC, LTC and heck, even DRK.... why Vericoin? Mintpal are bent. Always have been, they're just smart and subtle about it. They run bot armies price-fixing and shorting the coins that every other fool in cryptoland leaves lying there like it's a fucking bank. This time they screwed up somehow, their gamble didn't pay off, and the vericoin devs are in cahoots with them. Seriously, forking back a blockchain to cover an exchange's stupidity is a horrible precedent. An honest exchange would take the loss and learn from it. Blockchains are not supposed to be fucking time machines to magically repair the screwups of big players. Someone please explain to me how what was done here is different than TBTF. What's TBTF? Too Big To Fail, AKA USA banks circa 2008. Edit: AKA, the most centralized you can get. |
|
|
|
Morning folk. Just woke up and got creeped by the MP news. What really bothers me there, is that it was not user account, but MP themselves... so why on earth only Vericoin were stolen? If it was a service exploit, they would have gone straight to BTC, LTC and heck, even DRK.... why Vericoin? Mintpal are bent. Always have been, they're just smart and subtle about it. They run bot armies price-fixing and shorting the coins that every other fool in cryptoland leaves lying there like it's a fucking bank. This time they screwed up somehow, their gamble didn't pay off, and the vericoin devs are in cahoots with them. Seriously, forking back a blockchain to cover an exchange's stupidity is a horrible precedent. An honest exchange would take the loss and learn from it. Blockchains are not supposed to be fucking time machines to magically repair the screwups of big players. Someone please explain to me how what was done here is different than TBTF. |
|
|
|
If we create a forum of just good info for investors and holders, you will see Dark's value go through the roof!!
darkcointalk.org Where you been, bro? The quality of conversation here has been suffering without your input. No offence taken  One *could* misinterpret what I wrote... But you're clearly above that.  |
|
|
|
If we create a forum of just good info for investors and holders, you will see Dark's value go through the roof!!
darkcointalk.org Where you been, bro? The quality of conversation here has been suffering without your input. |
|
|
|
Yah and so what is the problem that it is in disconnect with reality?
Why the fuck do people come here and ask everyone to be grounded, real, don't be a fanboy, don't appreciate Evan to fanboy level etc. I am getting equally tired of these realists just like the fanboys. I mean no one checks any other threads and don't see delusions on ANY coin, be it BTC, LTC or any other shitcoin?
Even if you want to ask others to be realists, try a better approach. Some of you come as downright attacking and condescending. Come on.
[3:16] * luigi1111 slaps slapper around a bit with a large trout |
|
|
|
He won't ROI till like forever anyways. Go look up ROI. Very true. People in crypto for some reason use "ROI" to mean 100%. Best guess why they do this is due to the prevalence of ASICs, who's worth trends downward toward 0, and thus they must 100% ROI to have any return at all over time. ROI in a Masternode context is different because the "investment" is a coin, not a depreciating asset. It's way more comparable to a dividend-paying stock in that any ROI is real return, rather than just ROI over 100%. |
|
|
|
But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.
After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round. Ok, agreed. We're just splitting up the masternode steps in time, which will make traceability that much harder (temporally speaking). We can do step 1 of Darksend+ to redenominate as soon I receive DRK. Then I'm prepared for step 2, which is the 'instant anonymous' transaction. Yep, I'm on board now. Right. Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable. As always, consult your attorney etc. etc. because they can make a law for anything. But your logic does seem reasonable. Another question though. I would be concerned about real time data analysis during step 2 of Darksend+. Can the re-denominated addresses be de-anonymized since their outputs would be spent at the same time? By that I mean not only would my addresses appear in the same block, but the broadcast of the transaction would group my addresses together in time. Is there a countermeasure that can be deployed for this? Put another way, my group of re-denominated addresses appear at one time on the blockchain. A subset of them appear again as spent at a later time in the blockchain. Is that inconsequential? I think you're just talking about expected behavior? Of course combining inputs from your denominated addresses will link said addresses together. The point is, it *doesn't* matter. (** with caveats that I've talked about above: this is why I'm interested to hear more about it going forward) |
|
|
|
...
Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.
Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?). Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes). The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same. Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality. This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something? If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it. But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up. I think the point is that you don't need to 'use darksend' - the masternodes will be kept busy anonymising everyone's coin as an ongoing process, so you'll only ever be sending already untraceable coin. He still has valid points, and I return to my earlier statement: anonymity has caveats. What we basically have here is the graphic that went up a few days ago, but Evan said, "Wait a minute! The funds are already anonymous after step one! Why do we need step two??" There are still things that need addressed: 1. The client is going to attempt to re-denominate incoming funds; what flag is needed to stop my masternode from doing that to itself? 2. What if I need to send an amount larger than average? This can get messy. 3. What size and how many participants need to be involved in the anonymizing transaction to make it "good enough"? (again, it's the large holders that potentially want to spend a larger amount at once that causes the risk) 4. What about exchange wallets? Will they become a hot steaming mess of addresses due to their holding potentially huge amounts of coins? Is this acceptable? Something we want? Not relevant? All I got for now. |
|
|
|
Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).
The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.
Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.
I look forward to hearing more about this as you work toward making it a reality. |
|
|
|
We're almost at 80% masternode payments compliance!! I'll admit I didn't think we could do so well without enforcement, but I didn't knew people like GhostPlayer were going to work so hard on this <snip> Yeah, the masternode compliance police have been out in full force making sure people are paying their masternode tax. Will there be penalties going forward for not paying the masternode tax? Will a non-compliant pool operator be charged late fee's once they do become compliant? You could probably get a lot of good ideas from the United States Internal Revenue Service about collecting the masternode tax and what to do to those pool operators that are non-compliant. Maybe you could put a lien on their server or take them to court. There has to be some way to punish these individuals for tax evasion. Darkcoin is starting to resemble a government entity or corporation. It even has has it's own compliance officers and tax collectors. Enjoy your new image. It's amazing that you have confessed anarchists embracing a coin that is doing the same things that people complain about governments doing. I would imagine that if it was possible, some on this thread would condone incarceration and/or fines handed out to those non-compliant pool operators. Hang em High! Just dumped the last of my DRK holdings. I can't get away from this stench fast enough. I'm obviously not alone either. Enjoy your centralized masternode solution and compliance officers. Big Brother will make sure that the masternode operators get every last dime of taxes levied on the miners. It seems that entire purpose of this coin is to provide income for masternode operators and that the entire masternode concept was designed to take DRK's off the market thereby causing the value to go up. Anonymity is obviously no longer the driving force behind this coin. It's all about masternode payments to a few large holders and nothing more. Enjoy your slow but steady decline towards the bottom. I just noticed Ripple passed DRK on Coinmarketcap and Peercoin is right behind. The writing is on the wall for everyone to see. <snip> To your questions in sentence 2 and 3, I would say "most definitely not". You make reasonably valid points, at least from my perspective. The payment is literally optional at this moment. (sure, the network/community/whatever *wants* the payments to go out, but by definition they are not currently required to) Hopefully the new code for election and payments will take care of this anyway. There's nothing that needs to be done to "punish" bad actors, as their blocks will simply be rejected. They'll fix themselves. As to the second paragraph, that is your perception I guess. I think you couldn't be further from reality, but that's just me. Peace. |
|
|
|
The fees stuff was all obviously "thinking aloud" as eltito stated. "What if people could bloat the blockchain with by using this option.... Then we should ....". Nothing to be concerned about.
These are things that have to be built in as design parameters. You can't expect the attack to happen and then patch. Bloat = cost. No cost = tremendous bloat for the lulz. Well the answer is quite simple, no option to bloat the blockchain at all, given current baseline anonymity is good enough for everyone, using the current safeguardings already in place in the btc protocol (transaction fees required if coin age <<) How do you know it's "good enough for everyone"? Sure, it's pretty hard/impossible to prove a link, but if there's for example only 3 senders > 3 recipients, there's still the straight probabilities in play. Someone dead set on finding out who sent money to recipient A could possibly track down all 3 senders. Anonymity/privacy *always* has caveats. You can accomplish approximately what is being suggested by Darksending to a newly generated address for yourself, then forwarding the coins from there in another Darksend transaction. It takes longer and costs more, but you get "better" anonymity. same way some guy satoshi decided 6 confirmations was good enough to prevent double spendings. someone just needs to do some maths and makes an executive decision based on that. But Satoshi doesn't get to determine that. Whoever is receiving the coins can determine any number of confirms they please to. Bitpay takes 0 confirms for example. (at least in my experience using them; not sure what they have going on behind the scenes) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
